| Literature DB >> 36211018 |
G Simi Margarat1, G Hemalatha2, Annapurna Mishra3, H Shaheen4, K Maheswari5, S Tamijeselvan6, U Pavan Kumar7, V Banupriya8, Alachew Wubie Ferede9.
Abstract
In the modern world, Tuberculosis (TB) is regarded as a serious health issue with a high rate of mortality. TB can be cured completely by early diagnosis. For achieving this, one tool utilized is CXR (Chest X-rays) which is used to screen active TB. An enhanced deep learning (DL) model is implemented for automatic Tuberculosis detection. This work undergoes the phases like preprocessing, segmentation, feature extraction, and optimized classification. Initially, the CXR image is preprocessed and segmented using AFCM (Adaptive Fuzzy C means) clustering. Then, feature extraction and several features are extracted. Finally, these features are given to the DL classifier Deep Belief Network (DBN). To improve the classification accuracy and to optimize the DBN, a metaheuristic optimization Adaptive Monarch butterfly optimization (AMBO) algorithm is used. Here, the Deep Belief Network with Adaptive Monarch butterfly optimization (DBN-AMBO) is used for enhancing the accuracy, reducing the error function, and optimizing weighting parameters. The overall implementation is carried out on the Python platform. The overall performance evaluations of the DBN-AMBO were carried out on MC and SC datasets and compared over the other approaches on the basis of certain metrics.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36211018 PMCID: PMC9534630 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3357508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1A framework of the proposed TB classification model.
Figure 2Classification using DBN-AMBO.
Figure 3Qualitative analysis: (a) input image, (b) preprocessed image, (c) segmented image, and (d) classification.
Performance of proposed DBN-AMBO with other classifiers.
| Datasets | Performance | RNN | CNN | GAN | DBN | DBN-AMBO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shenzhen China | Accuracy | 0.895 | 0.792 | 0.972 | 0.973 | 0.992 |
| Precision | 0.893 | 0.927 | 0.970 | 0.981 | 0.978 | |
| Recall | 0.935 | 0.858 | 0.932 | 0.934 | 0.954 | |
| Specificity | 0.961 | 0.718 | 0.856 | 0.961 | 0.991 | |
| NPV | 0.214 | 0.347 | 0.175 | 0.283 | 0.06 | |
| FNR | 0.850 | 0.923 | 0.971 | 0.856 | 0.998 | |
|
| ||||||
| Montgomery Country | Accuracy | 0.983 | 0.894 | 0.952 | 0.915 | 0.987 |
| Precision | 0.853 | 0.914 | 0.906 | 0.913 | 0.966 | |
| Recall | 0.953 | 0.884 | 0.926 | 0.954 | 0.989 | |
| Specificity | 0.862 | 0.776 | 0.871 | 0.964 | 0.994 | |
| NPV | 0.221 | 0.343 | 0.074 | 0.327 | 0.02 | |
| FNR | 0.852 | 0.913 | 0.965 | 0.931 | 0.972 | |
Performance of proposed DBN-AMBO with other classifiers.
| Datasets | Performance | DBN-BOA | DBN-EPO | DBN-MBO | DBN-AMBO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shenzhen China | Accuracy | 0.852 | 0.927 | 0.931 | 0.992 |
| Precision | 0.871 | 0.952 | 0.967 | 0.978 | |
| Recall | 0.915 | 0.947 | 0.924 | 0.954 | |
| Specificity | 0.921 | 0.871 | 0.941 | 0.991 | |
| NPV | 0.201 | 0.165 | 0.275 | 0.06 | |
| FNR | 0.853 | 0.961 | 0.852 | 0.998 | |
|
| |||||
| Montgomery Country | Accuracy | 0.974 | 0.922 | 0.914 | 0.987 |
| Precision | 0.825 | 0.905 | 0.935 | 0.966 | |
| Recall | 0.846 | 0.928 | 0.941 | 0.989 | |
| Specificity | 0.862 | 0.811 | 0.745 | 0.994 | |
| NPV | 0.141 | 0.065 | 0.813 | 0.02 | |
| FNR | 0.882 | 0.835 | 0.923 | 0.972 | |
Figure 4CM: (a) SC dataset and (b) MC dataset.
Execution time of various approaches
| Methods | Computation time (s) |
|---|---|
| DBN | 1.52 |
| GAN | 3.242 |
| RNN | 2.75 |
| CNN | 1.348 |
| DBN-BOA | 1.771 |
| DBN-EPO | 2.721 |
| DBN-MBO | 1.74 |
| DBN-AMBO |
|
Comparison of the performance with recently published works.
| Methods | Accuracy | Recall | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pavani et al. [ | 0.955 | 0.933 | 0.98 |
| Islam et al. [ | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.92 |
| Santhosh et al. [ | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.80 |
| Rahman et al. [ | 0.964 | 0.966 | — |
| Proposed (Shenzhen China) | 0.992 | 0.954 | 0.991 |
| Proposed (Montgomery Country) |
|
|
|